By ALEX MALM

Like many people, state Rep. Joseph Solomon first learned about automatic license plate reader cameras when a camera was installed on the Warwick side of Pawtuxet Village over the summer by accident.

After looking into it Solomon realized that there weren’t any state laws in place regulating the cameras.

“Right now we have nothing to regulate what is already in place,” said Solomon.

Through bi-partisan legislation which includes House Minority Leader Blake Filippi as a sponsor Solomon hopes to regulate the cameras going forward.

According to the legislative summary the act would “provide for municipal and state police authorities to utilize automated license plate readers. Further, the act would identify what data may be collected and define how the data can be used.”

Last week the House Judiciary committee heard the bill.

“It went really well,” said Solomon.

Solomon said he worked with the ACLU of Rhode Island on the legislation.

“As typically occurs with surveillance technology, the actual capabilities of these cameras have been severely underplayed by police representatives over the past few months,” the ACLU testimony read. “The joint release issued by the police departments of Cranston, Woonsocket, and Pawtucket in August 2021 illustrates this issue, with the release reducing the abilities of the Flock Safety cameras to simply say that they ‘capture still photographs of license plates and vehicle characteristics as they travel on public roads.’  It is true that these cameras record and store both of these aspects, but the realities of the expanded abilities of this technology are far more alarming and troubling.”

During the Feb. 28  Warwick City Council meeting Col. Bradford Connor made the pitch for the Council to authorize the purchase of 10 Flock Safety Automatic License Plate Readers. Due to concerns  brought up by both members of the Council and the public the measure was ultimately held until the May 16 meeting.

“The Flock Safety ALPR is not your traditional live feed camera, rather it is a device that records and stores data. The technology captures still photographs of license plates and vehicle characteristics as they travel on public roads,” Connor explained in a memo to the Council.

“The cameras do not independently record people or faces but can be used to solve and reduce violent and property crimes. The cameras will never be used for traffic enforcement, as they cannot track speed or identify unregistered or uninsured vehicles. They capture objective evidence in plain sight, such as license plates, and can never be used for facial recognition.”

In the memo to the Council Connor said that while the cameras “do not result in unwarranted invasion of one’s privacy, they capture more than just license plates.”

“They allow investigators to search footage by vehicle type, make, color and other unique attributes; identify the state of a license plate; and capture temporary plates, paper plates, and vehicles without plates,” the memo reads. “ They are able to cover two lanes of traffic and vehicles traveling up to 100 mph. Investigators are also able to input vehicle data into the system and receive a ‘HIT’ and alert within seconds of a camera detecting that vehicle. The cities of Cranston and Pawtucket have shared their data and success stories with us. In the short time that they have used Flock Safety they have seen arrests increase significantly and have had a record number of recovered stolen property. Just as important, it has been used to locate missing and endangered people.”

Also weighing in on the legislation was the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns.

“One of the most crucial functions of municipal government is to protect the public safety of its residents and visitors,” said interim executive director Jordan Day. “Cities and towns invest substantial portions of their budget into police, fire and emergency services for that reason. New technology has served as a force multiplier for public safety departments, allowing them to enforce traffic laws and protect the public while allocating officers to where they can have the greatest impact, such as community policing and patrolling, emergency response and investigations.”

Day in her testimony said “The General Assembly has previously authorized cities and towns to deploy other technologies like red light traffic cameras and school zone speed cameras to assist municipalities in meeting their public safety duties.”

“ The League recognizes legislators’ interest in ensuring that those powers are used fairly and responsibly. As the Judiciary Committee reviews possible changes, we ask that you work with our communities to understand how any changes would be implemented at the operational level.” said Day. “ In many cases, these systems are sophisticated enough to be modified to adapt to changes in law and policy. However, if the requirements of using these systems become too expensive to program or too burdensome for public safety departments from a staffing perspective, then the systems may no longer be used – to the detriment of everyone’s safety.”

Stuart Wilson, who is challenging state Rep. Joe Macnamara in the District 19 Democratic Primary expressed his support for the bill in a letter to the editor.

“These cameras are accurately described as ‘proactive.’ They are not defensive, they amount to a weapon aimed at private citizens,” said Wilson. “This is technology developed for cyber warfare, and the WPD wants to use it on us. This is a dangerous trend. Our city should stand with the freedom of its citizens on this issue.”

A companion bill has also been introduced in the Senate by state Sen. Kendra Anderson.

The ACLU feels that the legislation needs to pass.

“In short, H 7507 is a crucial piece of legislation which will ensure that our state maintains oversight over the technology and tools being used by our public-serving institutions. It cannot be the case that we only pay attention to the proliferation of surveillance technology when it has become too late to stop or meaningfully regulate,” the testimony read. “We strongly urge passage of this legislation. It will allow police to use the cameras for the specific purpose that has been promoted, while prohibiting its more expansive and invasive use.”

Not everyone is on board

Cranston currently has 29 automatic license plate reader cameras across the city. During the committee hearing, Col. Michael Winquist expressed his concerns about the legislation.

Winquist said that the locations for the cameras were from the recommendation of Flock Safety.

“These cameras are all about public safety,” said winquist. “They have solved multiple violent crimes in the City of Cranston that without these cameras wouldn’t have been solved in my opinion.”

Winquist said that the cameras have helped to solve different crimes.

“These cameras have proven successful in armed robberies, car jackings, multiple stolen vehicles being recovered but the violent crimes is really what these cameras have helped us with,” said Winquist.

He said restrictions would make it so police could not record certain aspects, such as the color of the vehicle.

“Essentially, the restrictions in the bill would render these plate reading cameras useless,” Winquist said.

Winquist said none of the legislators who proposed the bill asked to sit down with him and his department for input to understand what this system can and can’t do. He said highway cameras record more information than FLOCK and have less restrictive policies.

“I don’t understand why these tools to protect the city are being singled out versus other cameras that produce revenue,” Winquist said.

Mayor Hopkins’ Chief of Staff Anthony Moretti said FLOCK has been a terrific law enforcement tool and the Mayor does not see it as an invasion of privacy, believing that the appropriate safeguards are currently in place.

“Mayor Ken Hopkins strongly supports the position of Colonel Winquist,” said Moretti. “It’s in the best interest of public safety to retain a system so successful so far by solving crimes in the city.”

Law enforcement isn’t the only industry that has concerns regarding the legislation.

“Our particular interest in ALPR technology relates to the vehicle finance industry’s use of it to rapidly identify and recover vehicles in default for a period of months with owners who are not responding to good-faith efforts to contact them,” said Matthew Kownacki Director, State Research and Policy American Financial Services Association. “While we do not believe it is the legislature’s intent to restrict private uses of ALPR—including those by the vehicle finance industry—we are concerned that, as drafted, the bill may have that effect. For these reasons, we oppose the bills as drafted, absent clarification that explicitly excludes privately owned or operated ALPR systems.”

What’s next

Solomon during his testimony on the legislation said in his personal view he thinks the cameras “probably” should be banned but said he wanted to take a more realistic approach to it.

In a phone interview after the hearing, Solomon said that he is willing to sit down with all sides to tweak the legislation if needed.

“I’m willing to work with all parties to put together a better bill. If we need to make amendmendments so be it,” said Solomon.

Solomon said that he thinks that there was a general consensus that there needs to be some type of regulation for the cameras.

“I think even the opponents of the bill realize it,” said Solomon.

Solomon on Monday said a vote on the legislation hasn’t been scheduled.

Emma Bartlett contributed to the story